Interpretation of University Scheme on Second Option Eligibility

In a recent legal case, the court delved into the details of a University Scheme, specifically examining the eligibility criteria for availing a second option. The court’s analysis centered on the interpretation of the Scheme’s provisions and their applicability to the case at hand. This crucial legal analysis sheds light on the intricate nuances of pension schemes and their implementation, setting a precedent for future cases in similar contexts.

Facts

The controversy in this case revolves around the applicability of the Scheme introduced by the respondent-University through a specific letter.
The learned Single Judge determined that employees retiring on or after 1.4.1972, who passed away before making a choice, could avail of a second opportunity to exercise a fresh option as per the Scheme.
It was emphasized that the Scheme provided for a ‘one more chance’ to make a fresh selection, as illustrated in previous cases like WP(S) No. 4452 of 2007 and WP(S) No. 4453 of 2007 adjudicated on 27.06.2009, where a similar benefit was granted to the petitioners.
Subsequently, LPA Nos. 395 of 2009 and 397 of 2009 were dismissed concerning the said circumstances.
However, upon the University’s appeal via LPA, the learned Single Judge’s decision was overturned, limiting the Scheme’s benefit to only those who had not exercised their option before passing away on the specified date.
Scheme dated 30.7.1998 was floated by the respondent- University for teaching and non-teaching employees of Sidho Kanhu Murmu University who retired on or after 1.4.1972 to exercise a fresh option for retirement benefit schemes.
Clause 5 of the Scheme stated that in case of employees who retired after 1st April 1972 but died before exercising their option, their family could still exercise the option by refunding the University share of contributory provident fund with interest either in cash or from gratuity.
Regular deduction at 10% was made from the salary as per the option chosen by the employee.
The husband of the appellant opted for the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and passed away in 1995 during employment.
The appellant, as the wife of the deceased employee, was held entitled to the benefits of the Scheme.
The appellant appealed against an order that stated she was not entitled to exercise a second option under the Scheme, as her husband had already made a choice.
All retiral benefits were settled and paid according to the option chosen by the deceased employee before his death.

Also Read: Court’s Jurisdiction in Re-appraising Arbitrator’s Findings

Analysis

The appellant’s husband was a lecturer at Godda College and was promoted to Reader
The Scheme allows family of deceased employees to exercise a fresh option if the employee died before exercising their option
The appellant’s husband had already exercised the option before his death
Family members had received all benefits from the previous option, making them ineligible for a fresh option
Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to exercise a fresh option under the Scheme
Division Bench did not commit any error in passing the order
Interpreted Clause 5 of the Scheme correctly
Set-aside the order of the learned Single Judge

Also Read: Contrary Directions in Issuance of Letter of Intent